Re: Implementing Federation, Part I

I might add to this that on Codeberg the organisation https://codeberg.org/fediverse is affiliated to SocialHub already, and hosts the FEP Process. The SocialCG might be mirrored here, or even finds its home on Codeberg.

That would be in line also with the 3-stage Standards Process that I am much in favor of to guarantee an open and decentralized ecosystem for the Fediverse.  See: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/3-stage-standards-process-guaranteeing-an-open-and-decentralized-ecosystem/3602

TL;DR this process is: Ecosystem --> FEP/SocialHub --> W3C SocialCG/WG

Despite the proposal being 3 months old, receiving positive reactions by multiple representatives of the SocialCG it hasn't been addressed here. Something I also mentioned in a recent reply: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/3-stage-standards-process-guaranteeing-an-open-and-decentralized-ecosystem/3602/30?u=aschrijver

On Thursday, December 21st, 2023 at 17:04, Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote:


> 
> 
> Perhaps an archival copy (say, "print to PDF" or Webrecorder or such)
> could be included as an appendix if someone else compiles implementer
> reports or otherwises synthesizes implementer feedback in some kind of
> CG note/report? I like to think of w3c repositories on github not just
> as collaboration venues but also as mini-archives, where possible, so I
> like to "back up" external links.
> 
> I think the other point, worth recognizing, is that while much of W3C
> uses the Microsoft-owned, originally-VC-funded github dot com platform,
> this particular CG has a lot of active/contributing members and
> implementers that share Marcus' preference not to have to use that
> platform to work on CG items. Hypothetically, would it be possible for
> an editor or initial group working on a Note or other deliverable
> together could agree to work on a codeberg or gitlab and migrate the
> repo over (or just push a snapshot and stay elsewhere for
> maintainence)? Either way, it might be worth including such a statement
> if this CG and/or some future WG charter covers such logistics.
> 
> Thanks,
> __juan
> 
> On 12/20/2023 1:50 AM, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
> 
> > If you want, make a one-line technical report referring to the article (or archive.org). You don't need me for that.
> > ...
> > you're welcome to do with the article whatever you please under it's given license.
> > 
> > Marcus
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 31 December 2023 07:29:05 UTC